Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.35/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Prelim
Don't forget about this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bracing (aeronautics) is a duplicated link
 * No edit wars
 * Image licensed correctly
 * Earwig reports copyvio unlikely


 * Sincere apologies, completely passed me by. Will complete ASAP. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede and infobox

 * Lede is very short which reflects the article, but maybe one more sentence about the location of the plane's service would be useful
 * Link seaplane torpedo bomber
 * "A FF.35 with axles installed underneath its floats" suggests that this plane was one of many; The FF.35... might be a better caption
 * Imperial German Navy isn't mentioned in main text

Development

 * A bit nit-picky, but World War I isn't actually mentioned in main text
 * The phrase torpedo bomber could be mentioned and linked a bit earlier on than the third paragraph imo
 * "which was more than existing aircraft"
 * That would work if it was part of an independent clause, but not in this case, IMO--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "it was a conventional" we skip very quickly from the Naval Office ordering what one assumes was multiple designs to describing the FF.35 in particular. A word or two connecting the original order to the subsequent design would make the start of the second paragraph much less jarring
 * Why isn't Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen mentioned in the main text?
 * "Although no further examples were built" Considering this bit is covered later on, I don't think it needs saying here when the reader doesn't yet have the context to understand why. Better to just go straight into the design influencing the FF.41
 * "formed the basis for the more successful FF.41" considering the short length of the article, I don't think it would be amiss to add a little on how the FF.35 impacted the FF.41

Operational history

 * "The SVK placed an order in February 1915" would be useful to categorically say that this was for one prototype, as this isn't mentioned anywhere
 * I don't think 300 needs to be italicised
 * "structurally obsolete by the time it was delivered." How so? Elaboration here would be useful
 * I wish I could, but the source doesn't go into any detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "September 1916" no need to repeat the date
 * Annoying that there's no concrete information for the fate of the aircraft?
 * You bet. It's really surprised me that so few German records have survived, but I hadn't anticipated that the Allies basically killed off the German aviation industry after the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)